BABU KHAN Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT

(2.) I have heard the parties. In this case, 8 kgs. of poppy straw was seized. Notice under Section 50 was duly given.. veracity whereof is disputed by Arnicus Curiae. The only question which the petitioner has pressed before me is that before taking search of the accused, the raiding party officials did not offer themselves to be searched by the accused to eliminate the possibility of any narcotic being planted. This is a very important safeguard which was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Kapil Singh, reported as AIR 1969 SC 58. That very view was further elaborated and adopted in the judgments delivered under NDPS Act, by Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High. Courts in the cases of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Vf.P., reported as 1992 (3) Crimes 412; Mohd. Siraj v. State of Maharashtra, reported as 1994 (2) Crimes 99=ll (1994) CCR805 and Najukrao Ramchatldra Kale v. State of 'Maharashtra reportedasl992(3)CCR2460. 8 kilos of poppy straw would normally be quite voluminous which cannot be easily concealed. The question whether such huge quantity could be planted or not, will be for the Trial Court to examine. But the fact remains that essential safeguard to eliminate the possibility of planting was not observed by the raiding party by offering themselves to be searched by the accused. The accused is a young man and if at the end of the trial,, he is acquitted, which will not be in the near future, he would be confined in jail during the prime of his life.